Revisionme
REMOTE · API.REVISIONME.COM
Visual feedback from your website's visitors as tasks for your coding agent.
Available components
Last scanned (5 hours ago)
Scores higher than 86% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 25 Oct 2026.
Category Testing and QA
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security89
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation is enforced on tool calls, but the challenge carries no valid RFC 9728 metadata, so a client cannot discover where to get a token. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present. View diagnostics → Pass
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability68
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 351 tokens (~87/item across 4 items; 4 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management43
- Stability observed for 13 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage92
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 75% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 4 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 5 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 24 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 37 to 40. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 11 days of observed history at the previous scan, 12 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 22 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 30 to 33. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 9 days of observed history at the previous scan, 10 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 20 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 23 to 27. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 7 days of observed history at the previous scan, 8 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 17 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 13 to 17. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 4 days of observed history at the previous scan, 5 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 15 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 7 to 10. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 2 days of observed history at the previous scan, 3 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 13 Oct 26 +1
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- 12 Oct 26 75
First indexed and scored.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 25 Oct 2026 · Probed https://api.revisionme.com/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=drachenfutter.love | CN=WR3,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 7 Sept 2026 | 6 Dec 2026 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 6b09458639b538bc0a46bec26e9e546c |
| SANs: drachenfutter.love, www.fukinshinbrothers.com, jopalinsure.buzz, kontoblick.app, www.jopalinsure.buzz, admin.ontheweb.ai, www.littlewhiz.app, www.jpowertrade.buzz, rodrigo.hustletech.dev, geminicore.buzz, auth.littlemoneyteam.com, schools.medhaedtech.com and 88 more | ||||||
| CN=WR3,O=Google Trust Services,C=US (CA) | CN=GTS Root R1,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US | 13 Dec 2023 | 20 Feb 2029 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 7ff005a91568d63abc22861684aa4b5a |
| CN=GTS Root R1,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US (CA) | CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE | 19 Jun 2020 | 28 Jan 2028 | RSA 4096 | SHA256-RSA | 77bd0d6cdb36f91aea210fc4f058d30d |
| CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE (CA) | CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE | 1 Sept 1998 | 28 Jan 2028 | RSA 2048 | SHA1-RSA | 40000000001154b5ac394 |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of api.revisionme.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | present | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| revisionme.com. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication Challenged, unverified
The endpoint asked for a token, but we could not retrieve and validate the RFC 9728 metadata that tells a client how to obtain one.
| Result | Challenged, unverified |
|---|---|
| Enforced | On tool calls |
| HTTP status | 200 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=31556926 |
Protected resource metadata
| Retrieved | No |
|---|---|
| Problem | no_resource_metadata |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://api.revisionme.com/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://api.revisionme.com/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://api.revisionme.com/mcp |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
get_issue Get issue ~65
One report in full: a Markdown brief for fixing it (URL, selected text, comment, viewport, browser), the raw fields, and the screenshot as an image.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | string | yes | Issue id |
| screenshot | boolean | – | Include the screenshot image (default true) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_issues List issues ~68
Feedback reports, newest first. By default the open ones across every project the key allows.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | integer | – | Default: 20 |
| project | string | – | Project id (from list_projects). Omit for all allowed projects. |
| status | string | – | Default: open |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_projects List projects ~23
Projects (websites) this API key can access, with their ids.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
update_issue Update issue ~60
Set the status of a report (resolved after fixing it, rejected when nothing should be done, open to reopen) and/or the important flag.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | string | yes | Issue id |
| important | boolean | – | – |
| status | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Revisionme MCP server?
Revisionme is a hosted endpoint at https://api.revisionme.com/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · api.revisionme.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-revisionme-revisionme 'https://api.revisionme.com/mcp'
What is the Revisionme MCP server?
Revisionme is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.revisionme/revisionme. Visual feedback from your website's visitors as tasks for your coding agent. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://api.revisionme.com/mcp).
Is the Revisionme MCP server safe to use?
Revisionme scores 81 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the Revisionme MCP server expose?
Revisionme exposes 4 tools: list_projects, list_issues, get_issue, update_issue. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 216 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Revisionme MCP server require authentication?
Yes. Revisionme asked us for credentials when we connected, so you will need to authorise it in your MCP client before it can do anything.
Is the Revisionme MCP server still maintained?
Revisionme is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 25 October 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.